Merely Because ECI Office Is In Delhi, Delhi High Court Will Not Have Jurisdiction : Election Commission
The Delhi High Court has granted time to the Election Commission of India to file its reply in a petition seeking action against such candidates who violated the masking policy during election campaigns amid Covid-19.The Commission has claimed that the High Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate on the plea and in any case, the matter has become infructuous as campaigns...
The Delhi High Court has granted time to the Election Commission of India to file its reply in a petition seeking action against such candidates who violated the masking policy during election campaigns amid Covid-19.
The Commission has claimed that the High Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate on the plea and in any case, the matter has become infructuous as campaigns are already over.
"This Court has no territorial jurisdiction. Elections concerned were held in five states- Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Puducherry. Merely because ECI office is in Delhi does not mean this Court has jurisdiction," Advocate Sidhant Kumar appearing for ECI said.
He further stated that the plea seeks directions upon District Disaster Management Authorities situated outside Delhi and for this reason also, the petition is liable to be dismissed as non-maintainable.
The petition filed by Dr. Vikram Singh, presently serving as Chancellor of Noida International University and Chairman of Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change (CASC), sought directions on Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs and Election Commission of India to debar candidates and campaigners from campaigning in election, "either permanently or for a stipulated period of time", if they repeatedly violate mandatory masking guidelines issued by Election Commission.
The plea was filed in view of Election Commission's decision to conduct Assembly elections in States of Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Puducherry.
The matter was listed before a Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh.
Advocate Virag Gupta for the Petitioner stated that despite the directions of the Election Commission, many of the campaigners and their supporters were found not wearing masks. He argued that merely because elections are over, the ECI cannot say that the matter is infructuous. "Non-masking and crowding has ripple effects," he said.
Gupta also referred to the oral observations made by the Madras High Court, saying that Election Commission is singularly responsible for COVID second wave and that it should be prosecuted for the offence of murder.
Taking strong objection to this, Kumar argued that such submissions should not be permitted to be made before a Constitutional Authority, especially in light of the fact that the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of making such extreme remarks. "This is slander," he said.
The Court also asked Gupta to refrain from making such remarks and posted the matter for October 18, enabling the parties to file their submissions.
Case Title: Dr. Vikram Singh v. Union of India & Anr.